Lindsay Lohan's behavior is not the best, but his latest travails on his alleged theft of the necklace of $ 2,500 is clearly the most comprehensive is a Los Angeles prosecutor and the courts.
The authorities do not want anyone who thumbs his nose at the system - and God knows how that Lohan is following his 2007 DUI case arrest.But collar would never have come so far against another person, especially if the goods had been returned as it was in this case.Barring a full confession of guilt, which obviously will not be obtained, the evidence is too inconclusive to support a flight case conviction.The crime was even lower, given the recent antics of the store and sold the tape Co.First Kamofie a media monitoring, and then announced its intention to auction the ring of charity.
Tape Lohan supports as much as it hurt him, because he claimed he borrowed the necklace, is not an unusual practice of celebrities.
There is also the question whether the jewel is worth $ 2500.
Prosecutors generally have broad discretion to continue the case, but the proof would have to go to the grand jury before the charges were brought.
Grand juries are specially designed to give prosecutors to review the arrogant.
They can objectively assess the evidence in order to prevent abuse of the process, including both favoritism and undue persecution under the Act.
Given the legal standard for conviction in criminal cases - guilt beyond reasonable doubt - no grand jury or jury, on the other hand, Lohan could possibly convict in this case - especially given that s is passed.
In court appearance today in Los Angeles, Judge Keith Schwartz gave a troubled actor until March 25 to decide the guilt or no contest to charges of theft.
Bhutto move was to save face before the court was too much for Lohan.
The cost and inconvenience of a trial should be a weight in the minds Lohan as well as the possibility of a jury conviction.
And that's why this case should never have been laid. It is no longer a question of guilt or innocence.
But with the prison time already guaranteed by law in case of a plea Lohan would be crazy to accept such an agreement.
If Lohan decides to continue, will go before a judge Stephen Sautner the preliminary hearing April 22.
Sautner decide whether the evidence is sufficient to hold a trial and decide on alleged parole violation as well.
This matter was a tempest in a teapot at the outset, and despite the poor discernment, Lohan has finally met the requirements of his probation.
She completed her treatment at the Betty Ford Center and has expressed a serious desire to concentrate on work.
Robbery case has become a farce, even in Los Angeles law, in no small part because of the actions of trade in gold, but also because the prosecutor revenge.
The case must be dismissed if Lohan can get on with your life now.
The authorities do not want anyone who thumbs his nose at the system - and God knows how that Lohan is following his 2007 DUI case arrest.But collar would never have come so far against another person, especially if the goods had been returned as it was in this case.Barring a full confession of guilt, which obviously will not be obtained, the evidence is too inconclusive to support a flight case conviction.The crime was even lower, given the recent antics of the store and sold the tape Co.First Kamofie a media monitoring, and then announced its intention to auction the ring of charity.
Tape Lohan supports as much as it hurt him, because he claimed he borrowed the necklace, is not an unusual practice of celebrities.
There is also the question whether the jewel is worth $ 2500.
Prosecutors generally have broad discretion to continue the case, but the proof would have to go to the grand jury before the charges were brought.
Grand juries are specially designed to give prosecutors to review the arrogant.
They can objectively assess the evidence in order to prevent abuse of the process, including both favoritism and undue persecution under the Act.
Given the legal standard for conviction in criminal cases - guilt beyond reasonable doubt - no grand jury or jury, on the other hand, Lohan could possibly convict in this case - especially given that s is passed.
In court appearance today in Los Angeles, Judge Keith Schwartz gave a troubled actor until March 25 to decide the guilt or no contest to charges of theft.
Bhutto move was to save face before the court was too much for Lohan.
The cost and inconvenience of a trial should be a weight in the minds Lohan as well as the possibility of a jury conviction.
And that's why this case should never have been laid. It is no longer a question of guilt or innocence.
But with the prison time already guaranteed by law in case of a plea Lohan would be crazy to accept such an agreement.
If Lohan decides to continue, will go before a judge Stephen Sautner the preliminary hearing April 22.
Sautner decide whether the evidence is sufficient to hold a trial and decide on alleged parole violation as well.
This matter was a tempest in a teapot at the outset, and despite the poor discernment, Lohan has finally met the requirements of his probation.
She completed her treatment at the Betty Ford Center and has expressed a serious desire to concentrate on work.
Robbery case has become a farce, even in Los Angeles law, in no small part because of the actions of trade in gold, but also because the prosecutor revenge.
The case must be dismissed if Lohan can get on with your life now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment